Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

195 (2006) 6110–6124

www.elsevier.com/locate/cma

Energy conservation in Newmark based time integration algorithms

Steen Krenk *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark

Received 13 May 2005; received in revised form 10 October 2005; accepted 12 December 2005

Abstract

Energy balance equations are established for the Newmark time integration algorithm, and for the derived algorithms with algorith-
mic damping introduced via averaging, the so-called a-methods. The energy balance equations form a sequence applicable to: Newmark
integration of the undamped equations of motion, an extended form including structural damping, and finally the generalized form
including structural as well as algorithmic damping. In all three cases the expression for energy, appearing in the balance equation, is
the mechanical energy plus some additional terms generated by the discretization by the algorithm. The magnitude and character of these
terms as well as the associated damping terms are discussed in relation to energy conservation and stability of the algorithms. It is dem-
onstrated that the additional terms in the energy lead to periodic fluctuations of the mechanical energy and are the cause of the phenom-
enon of response ‘overshoot’, previously observed empirically in the application of Newmark based algorithms to high-frequency
components. It is also demonstrated that the stability limit of the explicit Newmark algorithm is reached, when the stiffness term in
the algorithmic energy vanishes, and that energy fluctuations take place for integration intervals close to the stability limit.
Ó 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Numerical integration; Time integration; Energy conservation; Structural dynamics

1. Introduction

The basic equation of structural dynamics is the equation of motion, setting up a balance between internal forces due to
inertia, damping and stiffness with the external forces constituting the load. When the displacement vector is denoted u(t),
the linear equation of motion is
uðtÞ þ CuðtÞ
M€ _ þ KuðtÞ ¼ fðtÞ. ð1Þ
In this equation M, C and K are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the system, and f(t) is the external load vector,
conjugate to the displacements u(t). A central problem to which much effort has been devoted over the last fifty years is the
numerical integration of this equation of motion. The preferred methods are of the single-step type consisting of updating
_ €u at current time tn to the time tn+1 = tn + h, a small time interval h
the displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors u; u;
later. It is desirable that the algorithm has at least second-order accuracy, and because the spatial discretization used in
structural dynamics often leads to inclusion of high-frequency modes in the model, it is also desirable to have uncondi-
tional stability.
There are two basically different approaches to the development of single-step time integration algorithms: collocation of
the equation of motion at selected points in time in connection with a set of difference relations between the displacement,
velocity and acceleration vectors, or the use of an integrated form of the equations of motion whereby the acceleration is

*
Tel.: +45 45 25 19 64; fax: +45 45 88 43 25.
E-mail address: sk@mek.dtu.dk

0045-7825/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2005.12.001
 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6111

eliminated and the displacement and velocity vectors appear as state variables satisfying an integrated form of the equation
of motion. The first approach dates back to Newmark [1], who introduced a format in which the displacement and velocity
increments are expressed in terms of the acceleration vector, with subsequent reduction of the equation of motion at time
tn+1 to an equation for the acceleration vector € unþ1 . This procedure is attractive, because it is of ‘single-step, single-solve’
type, i.e. each step only requires the solution of one set of equations of the size of the corresponding static problem. In prac-
tice this means that linear as well as non-linear dynamic analysis can be handled computationally in a way very similar to the
corresponding static problem. A review of numerical time integration in structural dynamics with main emphasis on the dif-
ference based methods has been given recently in [2].
A limitation and potential problem with the collocation based ‘single-solve’ time integration methods occurs in relation
to controlled energy dissipation. As the models used in structural dynamics often contain high-frequency components that
are artifacts of the spatial discretization and not representative of the problem to be investigated it is desirable to introduce
so-called algorithmic damping of high-frequency components. Essentially, all frequency components in excess of the
Nyquist frequency corresponding to the time step h can be considered as high-frequency components. While algorithmic
damping can be introduced into the Newmark algorithm it was soon realized that the Newmark algorithm format would
then also lead to low-frequency damping, reducing the method to first-order accuracy. This led to a sequence of papers [3–
5] in which the algorithmic damping was modified by satisfying the equation of motion in an average sense between the
times tn and tn+1. These generalized methods enjoy great popularity due to their simplicity of implementation for linear
as well as non-linear problems. The properties of these methods have been established by frequency analysis of a modal
decomposition of the linear problem. While this gives a detailed description of the response of the modal components, typ-
ically in terms of complex variables, the energy conservation properties of the original system is only indirectly represented.
It turns out that introduction of algorithmic damping in the collocation based ‘single-solve’ algorithms leads to undesirable
side effects in the energy balance equation. One of the consequences is a tendency to ‘overshoot’ of the response of high-
frequency components, as discussed in [6,7]. In the present paper exact energy balance equations are derived for the time
integration algorithms of the Newmark family, and it is demonstrated that introduction of algorithmic damping leads to an
unintended reinterpretation of the energy. One of the effects of the modified energy balance is the possibility of ‘overshoot’
of transient response.
In recent years there has been extensive research on time integration algorithms in which the equations of motion are
considered as two sets of first-order differential equations: one set specifying the motion in terms of the time derivative of
the momenta, and another defining the momenta in terms of the time derivative of the displacements. Thus, the indepen-
dent variables to be integrated include displacements as well as momenta—or the associated velocities. This work includes
e.g. the extensions of the work by Simo et al. [8,9] on rigid and flexible bodies to rigid–flexible mechanisms [10], the use of
specific non-linear properties of stretches [11] and rotations [12], special potential fields [13], and the Hamiltonian form of
the equations of dynamics [14]. These algorithms make use of an integrated form of the equations of motion or special
formation of mean values over the integration interval and typically lead to second-order accuracy and exact conservation
properties, even for systems with non-linear kinematics represented e.g. in terms of the quadratic Green strain. Within lin-
ear structural dynamics the accuracy of this type of algorithm can be increased to fourth-order by reintroducing the equa-
tions of motion via integration by parts and high-frequency algorithmic damping can be obtained by introducing suitable
terms in the energy balance equation [15]. Satisfactory methods for introducing high-frequency algorithmic damping for
non-linear problems have still to be developed.
An essential difference between the two approaches to time integration algorithms is their relation to energy conserva-
tion and dissipation. The equation of motion (1) leads to an energy conservation relation by multiplication with the veloc-
ity vector u_ T .
 
d 1 T 1
u_ Mu_ þ uT Ku ¼ u_ T f  u_ T Cu.
_ ð2Þ
dt 2 2
The quadratic forms in the parenthesis constitute the mechanical energy, while the two terms on the right side are the rate
of work of the external force and the energy dissipation as described by the damping matrix C. Ideally a single-step time
integration algorithm should lead to a similar energy balance equation for finite increments, possibly supplemented with a
high-frequency dissipation term. While this can be incorporated directly into the state space formulation, the difference
based ‘single-solve’ algorithms typically lead to an undesirable reinterpretation of the ‘energy’. This paper contains a der-
ivation of energy balance equations of difference based time integration algorithms. Due to the prominent place of New-
mark and generalized Newmark methods the presentation uses the format associated with these algorithms, although the
methods used are generally applicable to difference based methods. First the basic format of the Newmark algorithm is
presented to set the scene, and then the energy balance equations are derived in three steps: first for the Newmark algorithm
applied to systems without damping, then including the effect of structural damping in this energy balance equation, and
finally extending the result to the generalized Newmark methods with algorithmic damping obtained by some form of aver-
aging of the equilibrium equations. The last generalization is accomplished by using the recent result that the generalized
6112 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

Newmark methods can be formulated by introducing additional algorithmic damping via an extra state variable, deter-
mined by a first-order filter [16].
It is demonstrated, how the parameters of the Newmark algorithm modify the energy balance. This leads directly to
three results. It establishes the conditions of stability of the linear Newmark algorithm. It identifies the stability limit of
the explicit Newmark algorithm as a loss of positive definiteness of the energy as perceived by the algorithm, and with sub-
stantial energy fluctuations for time intervals close to the stability limit. And finally it gives a precise description of the
energy fluctuations seen as ‘overshoot’ of high-frequency response components, when started from initial velocity condi-
tions for the explicit algorithm and from initial displacement conditions for the implicit algorithm with algorithmic damp-
ing. The results are derived both for the classic Newmark algorithm and the a-modified forms with high-frequency
damping. The conclusion is that the energy balance problems are common to all these algorithms, when used in connection
with algorithmic damping. Thus, the paper gives precise results for the properties of Newmark based time integration algo-
rithms for linear problems, and points towards the need for a different basis for further developments, most likely in the
form of algorithms based on the integrated equations of motion.

2. The Newmark algorithm

The Newmark algorithm [1] is used as starting point for the following investigation of difference based ‘single-solve’
algorithms. It is based on a set of two relations expressing the forward displacement un+1 and velocity u_ nþ1 in terms of their
current values and the forward and current values of the acceleration,

u_ nþ1 ¼ u_ n þ ð1  cÞh€
un þ ch€
unþ1 ;
 
1 ð3Þ
unþ1 ¼ un þ hu_ n þ  b h2 €
un þ bh2 €
unþ1 .
2

These relations are used to eliminate un+1 and u_ nþ1 from the equation of motion (1) at the forward time tn+1 giving the
following equation for the acceleration vector € unþ1 :
   
1
ðM þ chC þ bh2 KÞ€unþ1 ¼ f nþ1  Cðu_ n þ ð1  cÞh€un Þ  K un þ hu_ n þ  b h2 €un . ð4Þ
2
In linear problems the acceleration € unþ1 is found from (4), and the velocity u_ nþ1 and displacement un+1 then follow from (3)
by simple vector operations. The algorithm can be generalized to non-linear problems, simply by solving the corresponding
non-linear equations of motion at the appropriate time instants, see e.g. [17], although considerations of energy conserva-
tion may lead to the introduction of correction terms of higher order in the displacement increments [9].
In the following sections energy balance equations are derived for the Newmark algorithm and its generalized forms,
and it is demonstrated, how the conditions for unconditional stability can be extracted from the coefficients of the terms
in the energy balance equation. The energy balance equations also illustrate that algorithmic damping with complex ampli-
fication factors for all frequencies leads to the introduction of extra terms in the energy expression appearing in the balance
equation.

3. Energy balance of the Newmark algorithm

The discrete form of the energy balance equation involves the increment of the mechanical energy over the time interval
from tn to tn+1. This increment can be expressed in terms of mean values and increments of the displacement and velocity
by the following identity:
 nþ1
1 T 1 1 T 1 T
u_ Mu_ þ uT Ku ¼ ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ Mðu_ nþ1  u_ n Þ þ ðunþ1 þ un Þ Kðunþ1  un Þ. ð5Þ
2 2 n 2 2
The following derivations make extensive use of splitting the expressions into mean values and increments, and it is there-
fore convenient to introduce the notation Du = un+1  un and similarly for the velocity and the acceleration. It is also con-
venient to express the Newmark representation formulae (3) in terms of increments and mean values:
 
1 1
Du_ ¼ hð€unþ1 þ €un Þ þ c  hD€ u;
2 2
  ð6Þ
1 1
Du ¼ hðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ b  c h2 D€u.
2 2
It is seen that these formulae are fully symmetric for c ¼ 12 and b ¼ 12 c, while different parameter values introduce a bias.
 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6113

3.1. Energy balance without structural damping

The first step is to eliminate the velocity and displacement increments from (5) by use of the Newmark representa-
tion formulae (6). This gives four terms, of which two can be combined to give the load by using the equation of
motion:
 nþ1    
1 T 1 T 1 T 1 1 T 1 1 2 T
u_ Mu_ þ u Ku ¼ hðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ c  hðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ MD€u þ b  c h ðunþ1 þ un Þ KD€
u.
2 2 n 4 2 2 2 2
ð7Þ
T
In order to reduce the terms in this balance equation to quadratic forms the factor 12 hðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ in the first term on the
right side is eliminated by use of the displacement increment formula (6b),
 nþ1    
1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1
u_ Mu_ þ uT Ku ¼ DuT ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ c  hD€uT Mðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ b  c h2 D€uT fKðunþ1 þ un Þ  ðf nþ1 þ f n Þg.
2 2 n 2 2 2 2 2
ð8Þ

The terms in the curly braces can be replaced by a single term containing the mass matrix by use of the equation of motion
(1). This term is in increment form and can therefore be included on the left side of the equation
   nþ1  
1 T 1 1 1 2 T 1 1 1
u_ Mu_ þ uT Ku þ b  c h€
u M€ u ¼ DuT ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ c  hD€uT Mðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ. ð9Þ
2 2 2 2 n 2 2 2

In the last term the factor ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ is substituted from (6b), whereby
   nþ1     
1 T 1 T 1 1 2 T 1 T 1 1 1
u_ Mu_ þ u Ku þ b  c h € u M€u T
¼ Du ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ c  Du MD€u  c  b  c h2 D€
uT MD€
u.
2 2 2 2 n 2 2 2 2
ð10Þ

The final step of the reduction consists in reformulating the middle term on the right side by use of the equation of motion
(1). This generates terms containing the load, absorbed in the first term, plus a quadratic term containing the stiffness ma-
trix. The final energy equation then is
   nþ1
1 T 1 T 1 1 2 T
u_ Mu_ þ u Ku þ b  c h€
u M€
u
2 2 2 2
    n    
T 1 1 1 T 1 2 T
¼ Du ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ c  Df  c  Du KDu þ b  c h D€u MD€u . ð11Þ
2 2 2 2

This relation has the form of an evolution equation for the quantity within the square brackets on the left side of the equa-
tion. A special instance of this relation with c ¼ 12 was reported in [18].
For free vibration response the acceleration increment can be expressed in terms of the displacement increment by use of
the homogeneous equation of motion, whereby the energy evolution equation takes the form
     nþ1      
1 T 1 1 1 1
u_ Mu_ þ uT K þ b  c h2 KM1 K u ¼  c  DuT K þ b  c h2 KM1 K Du. ð12Þ
2 2 2 n 2 2
From this relation it is seen that the algorithm replaces the original stiffness matrix K by an equivalent stiffness given by
 
1
Keq ¼ K þ b  c h2 KM1 K. ð13Þ
2
This equivalent stiffness appears in the definition of the equivalent energy inside the brackets on the left side and in the
quadratic damping term on the right side.

3.2. Stability and modal response

For the algorithm to be stable the equivalent energy inside the brackets on the left side must be positive definite and the
right side must be zero or provide positive dissipation. It is seen immediately that these conditions are satisfied and full
correspondence with the continuous energy equation (2) obtained for the parameter values c ¼ 12 and b ¼ 14. In general
6114 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

stability requires the right side to be zero or negative, implying that c P 12. Taking c > 12 introduces so-called algorithmic
damping into the time integration. Stability also requires that the equivalent stiffness matrix Keq is non-negative definite.
The stiffness matrix K itself is assumed to be positive definite, and for b P 12 c a positive definite equivalent stiffness is guar-
anteed irrespective of the magnitude of the time increment h. Thus the conditions for unconditional stability are
1 1
cP and b P c. ð14Þ
2 2
These conditions are illustrated in Fig. 1. A spectral analysis reveals that for c > 12 the amplification factor associated with a
single-step of the algorithm may become real-valued for large frequency components [17,19]. This is undesirable and may
lead to loss of high-frequency damping. The following stronger criterion on b is therefore desirable to obtain complex-val-
ued amplification factors for all frequencies:
 2
1 1
bP cþ . ð15Þ
4 2
This criterion is shown in Fig. 1 as a dashed curve.
The condition (14b) on the parameter b can be relaxed, provided the time increment h is bounded by a limit hmax to be
calculated from the condition that Keq is non-negative definite. The time limit hmax depends on the behavior of the structure
described by the stiffness matrix K and mass matrix M. For linear structures the response is conveniently represented in
terms of the mode shapes u1, . . . , um in the form
Xm
uðtÞ ¼ uj ðtÞuj . ð16Þ
j¼1

In the representation (16) the modal coordinates uj(t) describe the time dependence of components described by the mode
shapes uj. The mode shapes are free vibration solutions of the form
uðtÞ ¼ uj eixj t ð17Þ
where ‘i’ is the imaginary unit, xj is the angular frequency of the modal vibration, and the result is interpreted as the real
part of the equation. Substitution of this representation into the undamped equation of free vibrations gives the generalized
eigenvalue problem

K  x2j M uj ¼ 0. ð18Þ

The mode shapes satisfy orthogonality conditions with respect to both the mass matrix M and the stiffness matrix K. These
orthogonality relations are conveniently normalized to the form
uTj Muk ¼ djk ; uTj Kuk ¼ x2j djk . ð19Þ
These orthogonality relations imply that each mode can be treated separately, and substitution of the modal representation
(16) into the energy equation (9) gives the following energy equation for mode j:
     nþ1     
1 2 1 1 2 1 1
u_ þ 1 þ b  c ðxj hÞ xj uj 2 2
¼ c 1 þ b  c ðxj hÞ x2j ðDuj Þ2 .
2
ð20Þ
2 j 2 2 n 2 2

Fig. 1. Stability domains of the Newmark algorithm.

 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6115

It
h is seen from this equation,
i that the modal stiffness is changed from its proper value x2j to an equivalent modal stiffness

 2
1 þ b  12 c ðxj hÞ x2j on both sides of the equation. This equivalent modal stiffness must be positive for all modes. The
condition of positive modal stiffness is conveniently expressed in the form
2 1
b ¼ b þ ðxj hÞ P c. ð21Þ
2
For a given value of b this condition determines an upper limit on h and the smallest of these is the limit hmax for condi-
tional stability. Conversely, for a given time increment size h the condition determines a lower limit on b. The limits for
conditional stability are included in the diagram in Fig. 1 simply by replacing b with b*. The case b = 0 is of particular
interest because the algorithm can then be arranged in explicit form if the mass matrix M is diagonal, or can be represented
as a diagonal matrix [17]. This leads to a conditionally stable algorithm, and if no algorithmic damping is wanted c ¼ 12, and
the upper time increment limit is determined from (21) as h 6 hmax = 2/xmax.
The effect of changing the modal stiffness is illustrated in Fig. 2. The figure shows the trace of a harmonic oscillation in
the normalized phase plane with coordinates ðuj ; u_ j =xj Þ. In this plot the mechanical energy is represented by half the square
of the distance from the origin and in the original problem the harmonic response is represented by a circle. The circular
contour is retained for b ¼ 12 c, but for b 6¼ 12 c the elastic stiffness is changed by the algorithm leading to an elliptic trace. For
b < 12 c, e.g. for the explicit algorithm with b = 0, the major axis of the ellipse is in the uj-direction. Two instances of this are
shown in Fig. 2(a). The dashed curve shows the response to initial velocity conditions uj(0) = 0, u_ j ð0Þ ¼ 1 marked with a
circle symbol, while the dash–dot curve shows the response to initial displacement conditions uj(0) = 1, u_ j ð0Þ ¼ 0 marked
with a cross. It is seen that for b < 12 c initial velocity conditions lead to a periodic energy fluctuation, in which the peaks of
the displacement become too large, the so-called ‘overshoot’. Conversely, displacement initial conditions leads to under-
estimation of the peaks of the velocity. Fig. 2(b) shows the opposite situation in which b > 12 c, typical of algorithmic damp-
ing in the implicit algorithm. In this case the elliptic contour has major axis along the u_ j -direction. Therefore the roles of the
initial conditions are interchanged, and now ‘overshoot’ is associated with the velocity response u_ j ðtÞ and initial displace-
ment conditions. These effects are illustrated by specific numerical examples in Section 5.

3.3. Energy balance with structural damping

The effect of viscous structural damping can be included by substituting the structural damping force
f C ¼ Cu_ ð22Þ
into the balance equation (11). This gives an additional dissipation contribution
   
T 1 1
Du C ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ c  Du_ ð23Þ
2 2
to the right side of the equation. These two terms are now reduced to quadratic

 forms and increments of quadratic forms.
1 T
It is convenient to start with the second structural damping

term
  c  2
Du CD _
u. This term is reduced by use of the
Newmark representation relations (6). The numerical factor c  12 is left out during the reduction for typographical rea-
sons. First the displacement increment is expressed by use of (6b),
     
1 T 1 1  T nþ1 1
Du CDu_ ¼  hðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ b  c h D€u CDu_ ¼  h u_ Cu_ n  b  c h2 D€uT CDu.
T 2 T
_ ð24Þ
2 2 2 2

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Phase-plane plots. Initial velocity u_ j ð0Þ ¼ 1 (– –), initial displacement uj(0) = 1(– Æ –). (a) Reduced stiffness b < 12 c, (b) increased stiffness b > 12 c.
6116 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

In the last term the velocity increment is now expressed in terms of the acceleration mean value and the acceleration incre-
ment by use of (6a). The term with the acceleration mean value can be absorbed within the square brackets, while the accel-
eration difference contributes a quadratic term. The full expression is
   nþ1   
1 1 1 1
DuT CDu_ ¼  h u_ T Cu_ þ b  c h2 € uT C€
u  c b  c h3 D€uT CD€u. ð25Þ
2 2 n 2 2
It is interesting to compare this contribution to the energy balance equation

 (11) with the terms containing the mass matrix.
It is seen that there is a complete match, such that when the factor c  12 is applied to the damping term this part of the
structural damping is accounted for, if the mass matrix M is replaced with an equivalent mass matrix M* defined by
 
1
M ¼ M þ c  hC. ð26Þ
2
For c > 12 the modification of the mass matrix leads to increase of mass and stiffness in the equivalent energy, and to a cor-
responding increase of the algorithmic dissipation term. Alternatively, it may be argued that M* should represent the actual
mass matrix, and the matrix M should be modified accordingly.
The first structural damping term DuT C 12 ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ would be quadratic, if both the displacement increment and the
mean value of the velocity represented the same value. This is not the case in general, and the difference is expressed by
writing the Newmark representation formula (6b) in the form
 
1 1
Du  hðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ ¼ b  c h2 D€u. ð27Þ
2 2
According to this relation the difference between representing the velocity via the displacement increment or via the mean
value of the displacements at the interval ends is proportional to the acceleration increment. Multiplication of both sides of
this equation from the left and the right on the structural damping matrix C gives the following expression for the first part
of the damping contribution:
   2
1 1 1 T 1 1
DuT C ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ ¼  h h2 DuT CDu þ ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ Cðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ b  c h3 D€uT CD€u. ð28Þ
2 2 4 2 2
All terms are now in quadratic form.
When the structural damping terms are incorporated, the energy balance equation (11) takes the form
   nþ1
1 T 1 T 1 1 2 T
u_ M u_ þ u Ku þ b  c h€
u M €
u
2 2 2 2
     n    
T 1 1 1 T 1 2 T
¼ Du ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ c  Df  c  Du KDu þ b  c h D€u M D€u
2 2 2 2
   2
1 1 T 1 1
 h h2 DuT CDu þ ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ Cðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ b  c h3 D€uT CD€u. ð29Þ
2 4 2 2
In this relation all the terms on the right side, except those representing the effect of the external loads, are of quadratic
form. With the exception of the last term they all represent positive damping. The last term is positive and quadratic in
the acceleration increments. A similar negative term is present in the modified mass matrix. The total contribution from
the viscous structural damping matrix in the quadratic acceleration increment terms is
  ( 2  )
1 1 1 1
 b c c  b c h3 D€
uT CD€u. ð30Þ
2 2 2 2

For unconditional stability without restrictions on the structural damping matrix C both scalar factors must be non-neg-
ative. Thus, unconditional stability of systems with viscous structural damping can be secured by c P 12 and a parameter b
satisfying
 2
1 1
06b c62 c . ð31Þ
2 2
The lower limit corresponds to the requirement for unconditional stability of the undamped system. The upper limit is sim-
ilar in form to that
of unconditional
2 stability with complex amplification factor, given in (15). This condition may be writ-
ten as b  12 c ¼ 14 c  12 , and it is seen that the upper limit (31) is obtained by replacing the factor 14 with 2. The upper limit
is shown in Fig. 1 as a dotted curve. In practice the upper limit on b for systems with viscous damping is of little use as the
lower limit gives better phase behavior.
 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6117

4. Energy balance for generalized Newmark algorithms

It is well known that introduction of algorithmic damping in the Newmark integration method by selecting a value of c
larger than the stability limit 12 introduces low frequency damping, equivalent to reduction of the accuracy of the integration
scheme from second to first-order. This problem was remedied by averaging procedures, in which either the stiffness and
damping terms, the inertial terms, or all of these were introduced as weighted averages of their values at tn and tn+1 [3–5].
These generalized Newmark methods often go by the name of ‘a-methods’ because the symbol a is used for the weights in
the averages. It has recently been demonstrated that these methods working with one or two weighted averages of the terms
in the equation of motion can be considered as special cases of a general procedure, in which the algorithmic damping of
the Newmark algorithm is supplemented by a damping term generated from the response velocity vector via a first-order
filter [16]. This approach is particularly appealing in relation to energy conservation properties, because it permits a fairly
straightforward extension of the analysis given above to include the effects of the generalized Newmark methods by con-
sidering the new damping vector as an additional state variable. A variant of the a-modification developed for Newmark
based methods has been introduced into the kinematically non-linear energy conserving algorithm by changing the interval
mean values to a-weighting [20].

4.1. Algorithmic damping by an additional state variable

_ is replaced by a vector w(t) that is in

The idea is to introduce a damping contribution in which the velocity vector uðtÞ
_
phase with uðtÞ for low frequencies, but gradually changes to be in phase with the displacement u(t) for high frequencies.
Such a variable can be generated by the linear filter equation
_ þ wðtÞ ¼ mhuðtÞ.
mhwðtÞ _ ð32Þ

In this filter equation the time scale mh is expressed in terms of the integration time step h and the non-dimensional para-
meter m. The state variable w has the same dimension as the displacement u, and the phase relation appearing from the filter
equation suggests a generalized equation of motion
1
uðtÞ þ CuðtÞ
M€ _ þ KuðtÞ  ðmhÞ DwðtÞ ¼ fðtÞ; ð33Þ
1 1
where a new negative damping term (mh) Dw(t) has been introduced. The factor (mh) is included to give the matrix D
the dimension of a damping matrix. The term is negative, because it is intended to eliminate the undesirable low-frequency
algorithmic damping that is a side effect in the basic Newmark algorithm. This requires that the algorithmic damping ma-
trix D is proportional to the stiffness matrix
D ¼ ahK; ð34Þ
where a is a non-dimensional parameter controlling the magnitude of the damping term, and the factor h appears for
dimensional reasons.
In the algorithm the filter equation (32) is discretized in terms of central differences and mean values as
1
mDw þ ðwnþ1 þ wn Þ ¼ mDu. ð35Þ
2
The terms on the left can be rearranged as a weighted sum of wn+1 and wn,
   
1 1
þ m wnþ1 þ  m wn ¼ mðunþ1  un Þ. ð36Þ
2 2
Formation of a linear combination of the equation of motion with the weight 12 þ m on the forward time tn+1 and the weight
1
2
 m on the current time tn will eliminate explicit dependence on the variable w, leaving the averaged equation of motion
     
1 1 1
þ m M€ unþ1 þ þ m Cu_ nþ1 þ þ m  a Kunþ1
2 2 2
         
1 1 1 1 1
¼   m M€ un   m Cun 
_  m þ a Kun þ þ m f nþ1 þ  m fn. ð37Þ
2 2 2 2 2
It is seen that the effect of the algorithmic damping via the first-order filter with displacement representation of the discret-
ization is to form a weighted average of the equation of motion, and it was demonstrated in [16] that the improved low
frequency damping is obtained by selecting
1
a¼c . ð38Þ
2
6118 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

1 
In the weighted average and damping forces and the loads are given the weights 2  m while the stiffness terms
1 the inertial
are given the weights 2  ðm  aÞ . This form of the equation of motion, in which the terms are given two sets of relative
forward weights is similar to that of the generalized a-method of Chung and Hulbert [5]. However, in the present format
the damping term and the load have the same weights as the inertial terms, while in the generalized a-method the weights
on the loads were chosen to follow those of the stiffness terms. The a-methods by Hilber et al. [3] and by Wood et al. [4] are
contained as special cases with m ¼ 12 and m ¼ 12 þ a, respectively. It is a feature of the filter approach that the external loads
have the same weights as the inertial terms, and it has been demonstrated in [16] that this weighting is more accurate. It can
be demonstrated
 that
a marginal improvement of the viscous damping can be obtained by use the weights of the stiffness
terms 12  ðm  aÞ on the viscous damping terms [16], but this will not be discussed further here.

4.2. Energy balance

An energy balance equation for generalized Newmark methods can be obtained by observing that the equation of
motion (33) is similar to that treated previously, but now with an additional damping force
a
f D ¼ Kw. ð39Þ
m
When this additional force is included in the balance equation (11) it generates an additional term
 
a T 1
Du K ðwnþ1 þ wn Þ þ aDw ð40Þ
m 2
on the right side of the equation. The value a ¼ c  12, necessary for optimal low-frequency damping, has been used. This
term will now be reduced to quadratic forms and increments of quadratic forms.
First the mean value of w is eliminated by use of the discretized filter equation (35). This gives
a T a
Du KfmDu  ðm  aÞDwg ¼ aDuT KDu  ðm  aÞ DuT KDw. ð41Þ
m m
The quadratic term in Du is positive and cancels a similar negative term in the energy balance equation (43). In fact, this is
the elimination of the undesirable low-frequency algorithmic damping of the Newmark algorithm. In the last term the dis-
placement increment Du is expressed in terms of mean value and increment of w by the discretized filter equation (35).
When leaving out the numerical factor this gives for the last term
 
1 T 1 nþ1
DuT KDw ¼  DwT þ ðwn þ wnþ1 Þ KDw ¼ DwT KDw  ½wT Kwn . ð42Þ
2m 2m
When the terms generated by the damping force fD are added into the energy balance equation (43) it takes the form
   nþ1
1 T 1 T 1 1 2 T 1 a a T
u_ M u_ þ u Ku þ b  c h€ uþ 1
u M € w Kw
2 2 2 2 2 m m n
       
T 1 1 a T 1 2 T
¼ Du ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ c  Df  a 1  Dw KDw þ b  c h D€u M D€u
2 2 m 2
   2
1 1 T 1 1
 h h2 DuT CDu þ ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ Cðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ þ b  c h3 D€uT CD€u; ð43Þ
2 4 2 2
where the parameters c and a are related by (38). It is seen that the effect of the filter damping term is to replace the low
frequency damping term, originally quadratic in Du with a similar term in Dw, and to add a quadratic term in w to the
equivalent energy. The phase of w varies between that of the velocity u_ and the displacement u with increasing frequency,
but is bounded relative to these vectors as a consequence of the filter equation (36).

4.3. Parameters of the generalized Newmark method

In the generalized Newmark methods there are three amplification factors associated with the natural modes of vibra-
tion, two from the original algorithm and one extra from the new state variable w. An optimal set of parameters may be
defined by requiring the pair of amplification factors to be complex conjugate for all frequencies, and to let all three ampli-
fication factors coalesce at the same spectral radius jk1j in the limit of infinite frequency. These are the criteria used by
Chung and Hulbert [5] for optimal parameters of the generalized a-method. In the present notation these criteria imply
that all parameters can be prescribed in terms of a as
1 1 2 3
c¼ þ a; b ¼ ð1 þ aÞ ; m ¼ a. ð44Þ
2 4 2
 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6119

The parameter a controls the magnitude of the algorithmic damping, and is related to the spectral radius at infinite fre-
quency as
1a 1  jk1 j
jk1 j ¼ ; a¼ . ð45Þ
1þa 1 þ jk1 j

A detailed study of the influence of the parameter a on damping and phase error has been presented in [16]. The parameter
combination (44) represents the most common choice, and it is therefore of interest to specialize the general energy balance
equation (43) to this case,
"  2 #nþ1
1 T 1 T 1 1 T 1 T
u_ M u_ þ u Ku þ ah € u M € u þ w Kw
2 2 2 2 9
n
  (  2 )
1 1 1
¼ DuT ðf nþ1 þ f n Þ þ aDf  a DwT KDw þ ah D€uT M D€u
2 3 2
(  4 )
1 1 T 1 2 T 1 T
 h Du CDu þ h ðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ Cðu_ nþ1 þ u_ n Þ  ah D€u CD€u . ð46Þ
2 4 2

As already mentioned the last viscous damping term on the right side contributes negative dissipation but constitutes only a
fraction of the acceleration term associated with D€u and M*. Thus, all damping terms are non-negative quadratic forms,
and the generalized Newmark algorithm with parameter combination (44) is unconditionally stable. However, the energy
has been reinterpreted as shown in the square brackets on the left side of the balance equation. The consequence of this is
illustrated in the following section.

5. Numerical illustrations

The original Newmark algorithm is energy conserving in the special case b ¼ 12 c ¼ 14. There are two typical cases in which
different parameters are chosen: the case of explicit integration b = 0, c ¼ 12, and the case in which algorithmic damping is
introduced by selecting c > 12. In these cases the energy balance equation contains additional terms that lead to undesirable
fluctuations of the proper mechanical energy as illustrated in Fig. 2. This effect is demonstrated in the following by three
examples: energy conservation for explicit Newmark integration of a single mode, energy fluctuations in explicit time inte-
gration of multi-component response, and finally the attenuation of equivalent and mechanical energy in the presence of
algorithmic damping, where the initial part of the response may contain an increase of the energy of undersampled high
frequency modes.

5.1. Energy conservation in explicit Newmark integration

In the case of a single mode the energy balance of the Newmark algorithm is given by (20). For explicit integration with
b = 0, c ¼ 12 this equation takes the form of the conservation equation
   nþ1
1 2 1 1 2
u_ þ 1  ðxhÞ x2 u2 ¼ 0. ð47Þ
2 2 4 n

It is seen that the equivalent energy, that is conserved, contains a reduced stiffness. The requirement of non-negative stiff-
ness leads to the stability condition xh 6 2. The development of the mechanical energy and the equivalent energy are
shown in Fig. 3 with time step xh = 0.8 for the two different initial conditions v(0) = 1 and u(0) = 1, respectively. In both
cases the equivalent energy is conserved, as predicted by the theory, while the mechanical energy shows considerable fluc-
tuations. In the case of initial velocity v(0) = 1, shown in Fig. 3(a), the initial value of the equivalent energy is determined
by the kinetic part alone, and therefore is equal to the theoretical value of the mechanical energy.
h The equivalent
i energy is
1
2
conserved and this implies that when v(t) = 0 the normalized mechanical energy is equal to 1  14 ðxhÞ ¼ 1:19. In the
1 2
case of an initial displacement u(0) = 1 the initial equivalent energy has the magnitude 1  ðxhÞ
¼ 0:84, and the mechan-
4
ical energy fluctuates between the correct initial value and this lower value.
It is noted that for the explicit algorithm the equivalent energy always constitutes a lower bound on the mechanical
energy. This is a consequence of the parameter combination by which the equivalent stiffness is reduced. The implications
on the calculated response are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5. For the initial velocity condition v(0) = 1 it can be seen from
Fig. 4 that the velocity has the correct magnitude, while the displacement is overestimated by about 12 ðxhÞ2 ¼ 0:08.
Conversely, for the initial displacement condition u(0) = 1 it can be seen from Fig. 5 that the displacement has the correct
6120 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Energy (—) and equivalent energy (– –). (a) Initial velocity v(0) = 1, (b) initial displacement u(0) = 1.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Initial condition v(0) = 1. (a) Displacement u(t), (b) velocity v(t).

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Initial condition u(0) = 1. (a) Displacement u(t), (b) velocity v(t).

2
magnitude, while the velocity is underestimated by about 12 ðxhÞ ¼ 0:08. For a time step close to the stability limit these
errors can become very large, and it is advisable to use xh [ 1 for modes containing appreciable energy.

5.2. Explicit Newmark integration of multi-component response

For b = 0 the Newmark algorithm can be arranged in explicit form, if the mass matrix is diagonal and there is no struc-
tural damping, see e.g. [17]. For c = 1/2 the energy balance equation (12) takes the following conservation form for free
vibration response:
   nþ1
1 T 1 T 1 2 1
u_ Mu_ þ u K  h KM K u ¼ 0. ð48Þ
2 2 4 n

With these parameters the equivalent stiffness is less than the mechanical stiffness, and the stability limit follows from the
condition that the equivalent stiffness term must be positive definite, corresponding to xmaxh 6 2. The implications of the
conservation equation (48) for the equivalent energy is illustrated by analysis of the simple portal frame shown in Fig. 6
with m = 8 storeys. The mass of all floors are identical as is the inter-floor stiffness. They are normalized to M = 1 and
K = 1, respectively. This gives a reference frequency of x0 = (K/M)1/2 = 1 corresponding to a similar one-storey building.
An upper bound on the maximum modal frequency xmax follows by considering a division into elements, each containing
half the floor mass. This results in the upper bound xmax < 2x0 = 2 [19], and the stability limit gives a safe time step limit
h 6 1. The natural frequencies and periods of the vibration modes are given in Table 1. It is seen that the upper bound is
within 1.7% of the calculated value. The largest modal frequency is about 10 times the smallest, and thus even a crude inte-
gration of the higher modes leads to a fairly detailed representation of the lower modes.
 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6121

Fig. 6. Portal frame with m storeys.

Table 1
Modal parameters in 8-storey portal building
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
xi 0.185 0.547 0.892 1.205 1.478 1.700 1.865 1.966
Ti 34.048 11.480 7.048 5.213 4.251 3.695 3.369 3.196
1  14 ðxhÞ2 0.998 0.981 0.950 0.909 0.864 0.819 0.783 0.758
Ej =E0 jv8 0.233 0.218 0.189 0.150 0.107 0.065 0.031 0.008
Ej =E0 jx8 0.008 0.065 0.150 0.218 0.233 0.189 0.107 0.031

In this example the time step h = 0.5 is selected, corresponding to about half the stability limit with six points per period
for the highest mode and about 70 points per period in the lowest mode. The quality of the integrated results depends on
the distribution of the energy on the individual modes. Two cases are analyzed. In the first case an initial velocity v8(0) = 1
is imposed on the top floor. The distribution of energy on the individual modes is shown in the fourth row of Table 1. It is
seen that the highest three modes account for less than 10 pct. of the energy. The displacement u8(t) and the velocity v8(t) of
the top floor are shown in Fig. 7. The full curves show the result of explicit integration with h = 0.5, while the dotted curves
were obtained with h = 0.05. As expected the curves illustrate a certain drift due to the phase error developing a noticeable
difference after t = 15  20.
In the second case the initial velocity condition is replaced by the similar initial displacement condition u8(0) = 1. This
leads to the same distribution of the amplitudes of the modes, but the elastic energy of each mode is proportional with x2j ,
and therefore initial displacement condition results in more energy in the higher modes. In fact the highest three modes now
contain about 30 pct. of the energy. The displacement and velocity of the top floor are illustrated in Fig. 8. It is seen that
the results are of lower quality due to the higher energy content in the higher modes.
The development of the energy in the two cases is shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b), respectively. It is seen that in spite of the
seeming acceptable quality of the initial velocity analysis, the mechanical energy shows considerable fluctuations, while the
equivalent energy remains constant as expected. The initial velocity condition translates into a state of initial kinetic energy.
As the kinetic energy is correctly represented in the conservation equation, the mechanical and equivalent energy are iden-
tical at the initial time. At later times some of the energy is elastic, and because the equivalent stiffness is too small, this

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Initial condition v8(0) = 1. (a) Displacement u8(t), (b) velocity v8(t).
6122 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Initial condition u8(0) = 1. (a) Displacement u8(t), (b) velocity v8(t).

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Energy (—) and equivalent energy (– –). (a) Initial velocity v8(0) = 1, (b) initial displacement u8(0) = 1.

leads to larger amplitudes, and thereby to larger mechanical energy. Thus, for the initial velocity condition the equivalent
energy takes the value of the theoretically correct mechanical energy, while the mechanical energy produced by the algo-
rithm fluctuates at larger values. The fluctuations represent the contributions from the various modes. The relative error in
stiffness is shown in row three of Table 1.
In the case of imposed initial displacements the roles of kinetic and elastic energy are reversed. In this case the initial
displacement state corresponds to an initial state of elastic energy. This state is misrepresented in the equivalent energy
due to the misrepresentation of the modal stiffness, and therefore the equivalent energy in this case is lower than the correct
energy level. In this case the mechanical energy fluctuates between the correct theoretical value and the level of the equiv-
alent energy. The fluctuations are considerably larger than in the initial velocity case due to the higher energy content of the
higher modes. In both cases the level of the energy fluctuations is proportional with the square of the time step.

5.3. Modal response with algorithmic damping

In the case of algorithmic damping of a single mode without structural damping the energy balance equation (46) takes
the following form for free vibrations:
   nþ1  
1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2
u_ þ 1 þ ðaxhÞ x u þ x w ¼ ax ðaxhÞ ðDuÞ þ ðDwÞ . ð49Þ
2 2 4 9 n 4 3
This equation covers the original Newmark algorithm with a ¼ c  12, when terms involving the auxiliary state variable w
are omitted, and the generalized Newmark algorithm when all terms are included. This energy equation is different from
(47) for the explicit Newmark algorithm in several ways. First of all it contains dissipation terms on the right side. The
reinterpretation of the energy is also different, depending on axh instead of xh, with increased equivalent stiffness as well
as an additional quadratic term in w.
The parameter a is related to the spectral radius jk1j as given by (45). In order to illustrate the effect of algorithmic
damping the damping parameter is taken to be a = 0.1 corresponding to the spectral radius k1 = 0.818. At the Nyquist
frequency xh = 1, and the change of the stiffness is about 0.3 pct. However, algorithmic damping is introduced to reduce
 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124 6123

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Energy (—) and equivalent energy (– –) for a = 0.1 and h/T = 10. (a) Newmark algorithm, (b) generalized a-algorithm.

(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Initial condition u(0) = 1, a = 0.1 and h/T = 10. (a) Displacement u(t), (b) velocity v(t).

or eliminate response components with frequencies higher than those that can be properly handled within the discretization
with the chosen time step h, and thus control of response components with xh considerably larger than unity is also a con-
cern. Here the parameter value h/T = 10 is chosen, representing a heavily undersampled response component. The devel-
opment of the mechanical energy and the equivalent energy for free vibration response to the two sets of initial conditions
u(0) = 0, v(0) = 1 and u(0) = 1, v(0) = 0 are illustrated in Fig. 10(a) and (b) for the Newmark algorithm and the generalized
a-algorithms, respectively. The energy development is largely similar for the two algorithms. In the case of initial velocity
v(0) = 1 the initial value of the equivalent and mechanical energies are identical, and they both decrease monotonically. In
the case of initial displacement u(0) = 1 the higher equivalent stiffness leads to a higher initial value of the equivalent
energy. The equivalent energy decreases monotonically, as predicted by the energy relation (49). In contrast, the mechan-
ical energy increases to nearly double its initial value before starting to decrease. Clearly this excess energy leads to over-
estimation of the response. The larger equivalent stiffness limits the displacement response, while the velocity response
exhibits ‘overshoot’ behavior. This is illustrated in Fig. 11 for the generalized a-algorithm. The behavior for the original
Newmark algorithm is similar. This type of ‘overshoot’ behavior was illustrated by Hilber and Hughes [6] and investigated
more recently by Zhou and Tamma [7]. It finds a theoretical explanation by the energy relations for the algorithms.

6. Discussion

It has been demonstrated that the response calculated by the Newmark time integration algorithm satisfies an energy
balance equation. In the special case of c ¼ 12, b ¼ 14 the algorithm is energy conserving. For different values of the param-
eters, extra terms appear in the energy balance equation. For c > 12 algorithmic damping in terms of the stiffness matrix
appears. For b 6¼ 12 c the quadratic stiffness term is supplemented by a term that is quadratic in the acceleration. The stiff-
ness term appears in the definition of the mechanical energy and also contributes to the algorithmic damping. For free
vibrations the acceleration term can be expressed as an extra stiffness term for each of the vibration modes with a relative
magnitude proportional with the square of the modal frequencies. The frequency dependence implies that this modification
of the stiffness may become important for the higher modes. Two cases are of particular interest: the explicit integration
with b = 0, and the case when unconditional stability is used in connection with algorithmic damping to suppress undesir-
able high-frequency components. In both cases the free vibration path in the phase plane of the high-frequency modes
traces an ellipse instead of a circle, due to the changed stiffness. In the response this shows up as stable and regular fluc-
tuations of the mechanical energy. In fact, the criterion for conditional stability can be interpreted as the requirement that
even the highest mode retains positive equivalent stiffness.
6124 S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 6110–6124

It has recently been demonstrated that the so-called a-methods, in which the algorithmic damping of the original New-
mark method is modified by taking a weighted average of the equation of motion at two consecutive times, can be con-
sidered as special cases of a procedure in which damping is modified by a first-order filter. By casting the a-methods
into a format with this new damping variable as a new state variable, the energy balance equations can be generalized
to the class of a-methods. The basic features of the energy balance equation are the same as for the original Newmark
method, because the a-methods only introduce a low-frequency modification to the algorithmic damping of the Newmark
algorithm obtained by selecting c > 12. Thus the a-methods leave the high-frequency regime with its proneness to energy
modification virtually unchanged from the Newmark algorithm. An effect of the energy fluctuations introduced by the
algorithm for b 6¼ 12 c is the phenomenon of ‘overshoot’ by which high-frequency components can increase beyond their
initial amplitude, before they are attenuated by the algorithmic damping. The energy balance equations explains this phe-
nomenon quantitatively as well as qualitatively, and suggests that algorithmic damping should only be introduced to the
extent necessary, as the stiffness modification is proportional with a2.

Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by the Danish Technical Research Council through the program ‘Damping Mechanisms
in Dynamics of Structures and Materials’.

References

[1] N.M. Newmark, A method of computation for structural dynamics, J. Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE 85 (1959) 67–94.
[2] G.M. Hulbert, Computational structural dynamics, in: Solids and Structures, in: E. Stein, R. de Borst, T.J.R. Hughes (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Computational Mechanics, vol. 2, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2004, pp. 169–193.
[3] H.M. Hilber, T.J.R. Hughes, R.L. Taylor, Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics, Earthquake Engrg.
Struct. Dyn. 5 (1977) 282–292.
[4] W.L. Wood, M. Bossak, O.C. Zienkiewicz, An alpha modification of Newmark’s method, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 15 (1981) 1562–1566.
[5] J. Chung, G.M. Hulbert, A time integration algorithm for structural dynamics with improved numerical dissipation: the generalized a method, J.
Appl. Mech. 60 (1993) 371–375.
[6] H.M. Hilber, T.J.R. Hughes, Collocation, dissipation and ‘overshoot’ for time integration schemes in structural dynamics, Earthquake Engrg. Struct.
Dyn. 6 (1978) 99–117.
[7] X. Zhou, K.K. Tamma, Design, analysis and synthesis of generalized single step single solve and optimal algorithms for structural dynamics, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Engrg. 59 (2004) 597–668.
[8] J.C. Simo, K.K. Wong, Unconditionally stable algorithms for rigid body dynamics that exactly preserve energy and momentum, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Engrg. 31 (1991) 19–52.
[9] J.C. Simo, N. Tarnow, The discrete energy-momentum method. Conserving algorithms for nonlinear elastodynamics, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 43
(1992) 757–792.
[10] M.A. Puso, An energy and momentum conserving method for rigid–flexible body dynamics, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 53 (2002) 1393–1414.
[11] O. Gonzalez, Exact energy and momentum conserving algorithms for general models in non-linear elasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.
190 (2000) 1763–1783.
[12] E.V. Lens, A. Cardona, M. Geradin, Energy preserving time integration for constrained multibody systems, Multibody Syst. Dyn. 11 (2004) 41–61.
[13] P. Betsch, P. Steinmann, Conservation properties of a time FE method. Part I: Time-stepping schemes for N-body problems, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Engrg. 49 (2000) 599–638.
[14] P. Betsch, P. Steinmann, Conservation properties of a time FE method. Part II: Time-stepping schemes for non-linear elastodynamics, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Engrg. 50 (2001) 1931–1955.
[15] S. Krenk, State-space time integration with energy control and 4th order accuracy for linear dynamic systems, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 65
(2006) 595–619.
[16] S. Krenk, J.R. Høgsberg, Properties of time integration with first order filter damping, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 64 (2005) 547–566.
[17] M. Geradin, D. Rixen, Mechanical Vibrations, second ed., Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1997.
[18] T.J.R. Hughes, A note on the stability of Newmark’s algorithm in non-linear structural dynamics, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 11 (1977) 383–386.
[19] T.J.R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
[20] D. Kuhl, M.A. Crisfield, Energy conserving and decaying algorithms in non-linear structural dynamics, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 45 (1999) 569–
599.